Because photo-enthusiast hobbyists vastly out number working pros by a zillion to one?

Even a tiny fraction of hobbyists buying L lenses would exceed the total number of working pros. The exceptions *might* be the extremely long L primes (400, 600, etc), but even there, there exists a huge number of non-pro nature photographers that use these regularly.

I don't know how big the non-pro and pro markets are. However, I agree you many no-pro buy L lenses. In my company(about 50 people), three 5D2 and 4 L lenses. I own 2 lenses(see my signature).

How do you know that the "non-pro, photo-enthusiasts segment of the market" are "the guys who buy by far the largest share of higher-end, high-margin lenses and speedlites." I'm curious is you have any statistics that backs up your claim, or if it's pure speculation. If I interpret your statement correctly, then it sounds like you think that it's hobbyists that purchase expensive L-series lenses and accessories in the greatest quantities?

Because photo-enthusiast hobbyists vastly out number working pros by a zillion to one?

Even a tiny fraction of hobbyists buying L lenses would exceed the total number of working pros. The exceptions *might* be the extremely long L primes (400, 600, etc), but even there, there exists a huge number of non-pro nature photographers that use these regularly.

I agree that there is a vast majority of hobbyists compared to working pro's, but how many hobbyists have the budget to spend on such a camera and or L lenses? Unless they have large chunks of disposable income, and or are neuro, then most stick to their budgets (i.e. whatever they can buy at costco/best buy). But if you guys find any data backing your idea up that hobbyiests in large numbers are buying $2000+ cameras and or lenses, or even have $2000+ invested total in camera gear, it would be interesting to see.

How do you know that the "non-pro, photo-enthusiasts segment of the market" are "the guys who buy by far the largest share of higher-end, high-margin lenses and speedlites." I'm curious is you have any statistics that backs up your claim, or if it's pure speculation. If I interpret your statement correctly, then it sounds like you think that it's hobbyists that purchase expensive L-series lenses and accessories in the greatest quantities?

Because photo-enthusiast hobbyists vastly out number working pros by a zillion to one?

Even a tiny fraction of hobbyists buying L lenses would exceed the total number of working pros. The exceptions *might* be the extremely long L primes (400, 600, etc), but even there, there exists a huge number of non-pro nature photographers that use these regularly.

I agree that there is a vast majority of hobbyists compared to working pro's, but how many hobbyists have the budget to spend on such a camera and or L lenses? Unless they have large chunks of disposable income, and or are neuro, then most stick to their budgets (i.e. whatever they can buy at costco/best buy). But if you guys find any data backing your idea up that hobbyiests in large numbers are buying $2000+ cameras and or lenses, or even have $2000+ invested total in camera gear, it would be interesting to see.

is it an sony Alpha 900 on budget?...maybe they are repackaging the unsold a900as nikon d600

You might not be far from the truth. The A900 could well have been using an earlier version / manufacturing run of the same sensor now in the D600. 4 years ago it could have been much more expensive to produce. Nikon is using Sony sensors.

KeithR

The big problem here is too many Canon fans or employees trying to tell Canon is always right.

Nope.

The "problem" is whiny trolls (like stevenrrmanir - please p*** off to Nikon and leave this forum be) who simply can't get it through their heads that - whether or not they're happy with Canon's offerings - many of us are extremely satisfied.

It betrays a fundamental lack of intelligence to parse someone else's satisfaction with a brand into "fanboyism" just because they're throwing a stroppy hissy-fit about some imagined insult caused by Canon's "refusal" to make them their own personal wet-dream camera.

It is actually infantile to characterise people who are broadly happy with Canon as fan(boy)s who are "trying to tell Canon is always right" - much as I appreciate my 7D, I can give you a list as long as my arm of things I'd like done differently.

But I'll happily stand should-to-shoulder with anyone, shooting any subject matter they like with any camera they like, and I guarantee that I'll match them or beat them in terms of the end result, because there's simply no such thing as a bad camera these days, and the tiny differences between them are so piddling as to make equalising them at conversion/in PP trivially easy.

The whining malcontents who purport to believe that if only Canon made cameras like Nikon, their life would be worth living again, might benefit more from learning to use the gear they've got, and from learning how to convert and process the files from them properly instead of transferring their own lack of talent and ability onto the cameras they use.

briansquibb

The big problem here is too many Canon fans or employees trying to tell Canon is always right.

Nope.

The "problem" is whiny trolls (like stevenrrmanir - please p*** off to Nikon and leave this forum be) who simply can't get it through their heads that - whether or not they're happy with Canon's offerings - many of us are extremely satisfied.

It betrays a fundamental lack of intelligence to parse someone else's satisfaction with a brand into "fanboyism" just because they're throwing a stroppy hissy-fit about some imagined insult caused by Canon's "refusal" to make them their own personal wet-dream camera.

It is actually infantile to characterise people who are broadly happy with Canon as fan(boy)s who are "trying to tell Canon is always right" - much as I appreciate my 7D, I can give you a list as long as my arm of things I'd like done differently.

But I'll happily stand should-to-shoulder with anyone, shooting any subject matter they like with any camera they like, and I guarantee that I'll match them or beat them in terms of the end result, because there's simply no such thing as a bad camera these days, and the tiny differences between them are so piddling as to make equalising them at conversion/in PP trivially easy.

The whining malcontents who purport to believe that if only Canon made cameras like Nikon, their life would be worth living again, might benefit more from learning to use the gear they've got, and from learning how to convert and process the files from them properly instead of transferring their own lack of talent and ability onto the cameras they use.

How do you know that the "non-pro, photo-enthusiasts segment of the market" are "the guys who buy by far the largest share of higher-end, high-margin lenses and speedlites." I'm curious is you have any statistics that backs up your claim, or if it's pure speculation. If I interpret your statement correctly, then it sounds like you think that it's hobbyists that purchase expensive L-series lenses and accessories in the greatest quantities?

Because photo-enthusiast hobbyists vastly out number working pros by a zillion to one?

Even a tiny fraction of hobbyists buying L lenses would exceed the total number of working pros. The exceptions *might* be the extremely long L primes (400, 600, etc), but even there, there exists a huge number of non-pro nature photographers that use these regularly.

I agree that there is a vast majority of hobbyists compared to working pro's, but how many hobbyists have the budget to spend on such a camera and or L lenses? Unless they have large chunks of disposable income, and or are neuro, then most stick to their budgets (i.e. whatever they can buy at costco/best buy). But if you guys find any data backing your idea up that hobbyiests in large numbers are buying $2000+ cameras and or lenses, or even have $2000+ invested total in camera gear, it would be interesting to see.

You can tick me down as having more than $2000 in camera gear.

Okay, I stand corrected, hobbiests other than neuro and briansquibb =)

Competition fuels innovation, I'm sure if Nikon releases a D600 and it really is only $1500 that Canon won't just sit around and do nothing. And to those saying the 5DIII is a "bad camera" compared to the D800, have you even used it or is this just based on other people's opinions? Because if I recall correctly they both scored the same on DPReview and there are plenty of people that absolutely love the 5DIII and prefer it over the D800. They both have their purpose and it really boils down to personal preference. But from personal observation, I would say 8/10 people I see shooting with DSLR's are shooting Canon, so it makes sense that Nikon would try to undercut them to take their users. And people are talking about the 5DII like it is some bastard camera that's incapable of taking good pics, it's perfectly fine for the majority of people and can still produce stunning images. People have been shooting professionally with the 5DII for years, and now people are talking about it like it's a Rebel from 2004. If you genuinely believe you can't get great images with a 5DII, then you need photography lessons.

But for the people threatening to switch to Nikon, it seems like you're angry about the price and not so much the camera itself. If you really hate Canon that much and their cameras suck why are you screaming on a forum pretty much begging them to come out with something better/cheaper? If Nikon is so superior what are you waiting for? Go buy a D800 and register at Nikon Rumors.

The big problem here is too many Canon fans or employees trying to tell Canon is always right.

1. People have to have good skills to use cameras.2. People cannot complain the product you would like buy because that's against your choice.3. The lack of features are no problem because that's the company I like.4. Too many lenses to switch to another company. Here we are talking about CAMERAS, not lenses.5. Many resources from other websites are wrong because they don't know Canon.6. Anything against Canon is wrong.

A very interesting forum.

1. People don't have to have any skill to "use" a camera, but to get professional looking pictures you do.2. People can complain all they want, but some of the complaints are ridiculous and more related to price than performance.3. Please tell me what features the 5DIII lacks? SO many people are very happy with the 5DIII, whether or not the features are good enough for you is an opinion, not a fact.4. If you have $10k in lenses and a bunch of Canon accessories it makes it much more difficult to switch systems.5. I don't get what you're saying here, any credible photography source knows Canon.6. Anything against Canon is wrong. So you say you don't like Canon, but someone else might like them and disagree with you, that doesn't mean they are saying that you are wrong, they just share a different opinion from you.

It sounds like your biggest problem with the 5DIII is the price, but because the price is too high you tell yourself that it's not a good camera. Just for a moment, forget about Nikon, forget about the price of the 5DIII. Is it still a "bad camera?" Your problem is that you think that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong, you you believe that they think that you are wrong, when in reality they may just have different needs or preferences.

How do you know that the "non-pro, photo-enthusiasts segment of the market" are "the guys who buy by far the largest share of higher-end, high-margin lenses and speedlites." I'm curious is you have any statistics that backs up your claim, or if it's pure speculation. If I interpret your statement correctly, then it sounds like you think that it's hobbyists that purchase expensive L-series lenses and accessories in the greatest quantities?

Because photo-enthusiast hobbyists vastly out number working pros by a zillion to one?

Even a tiny fraction of hobbyists buying L lenses would exceed the total number of working pros. The exceptions *might* be the extremely long L primes (400, 600, etc), but even there, there exists a huge number of non-pro nature photographers that use these regularly.

I agree that there is a vast majority of hobbyists compared to working pro's, but how many hobbyists have the budget to spend on such a camera and or L lenses? Unless they have large chunks of disposable income, and or are neuro, then most stick to their budgets (i.e. whatever they can buy at costco/best buy). But if you guys find any data backing your idea up that hobbyiests in large numbers are buying $2000+ cameras and or lenses, or even have $2000+ invested total in camera gear, it would be interesting to see.

no need to back up things that are obvious with statistics. But you are more than welcome to do some digging.

Me, well currently I own Canon gear that cost me a total of exactly Euro (not USD) € 7782,60. 7D, BG-E7, 10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro, 50/1.4, 100/2.0, 70-200/2.8 II, Extender 1.4x II, 2x 430EX II, 580EX II, ST-E2, couple of LP-E6 batteries, Canon remote Control, and some other Canon accessories. I am a pure hobbyist and have earned any money with photography in my life. I regularly meet with other hobbyists and my kit is about middle of the road - there are lots of other amateurs I personally know, who have spent way more money on photo gear than I did. And I know, there are millions of us out there, without being abvle to gibve you an exact number. It does not matter. We definitely outnumber Pros by at least 10.000 to 1.

And a lot of us will switch to Nikon if Canon continues to fuck us up with incremental improvements rather than true innovation. And if Canon thinks, they can stuff their unwanted and unneeded video crap down our throats, they are dead wrong. We do not have the time nor the creative talent or funds to produce "quality video" worthwile watching. And for cheap youtube crap we just use our iPhones like everybody else, rather than a DSLR. It is as simple as that.

We would happily buy a 5D3 at Euro 3200, if the bloody thing had the D800 sensor and electronics in it and an amazing 2012 version of Canon's Eye Control Focus on top. But none of us will shell out 3200 Euro for a 5D3 that is inferior in every way to a Nikon D800 at 2.900 Euro or even to a D600 at Euro 1500 or so. Rest assured, the D600 will come! Nikon will use the opportunity to really win big time market share from this sorry, fat, self-content company Canon has turned into under its bloody geriatric top management.

We would happily buy a 5D3 at Euro 3200, if the bloody thing had the D800 sensor and electronics in it and an amazing 2012 version of Canon's Eye Control Focus on top.

I really miss Eye Control Focus. Selective spot meter AND focus, just by looking at a part of the frame. I would pay a premium to have that again (even though I know the technology costs Canon next to nothing to implement).

Logged

Jason Beiko

In my mind there is no question that Canon has to respond strongly if this rumour comes true. My logic is as follows.... I think the vast majority of Canon shooters who are heavily invested in Canon glass are not going to switch to Nikon despite their current, arguably, superior sensors. If, however, Nikon continues to produce arguably better and cheaper cameras, then those individuals waiting to see how Canon responds will begin to switch (I'm in this category).

Now I think the big market share issue is not people switching from Canon to Nikon but rather capturing the individuals who are new to the DSLR market. Your first DSLR will be a major determinant of which lenses and other accessories you buy. I think that someone who is thinking about purchasing their first DLSR will find better reviews praising Nikon's new cameras/sensors then for Canon. I can tell you that my first DSLR was a Canon 7D because, at the time, the reviews for the camera and the brand were high. In my mind the new sensor technology in the Nikons have catapulted them to the forefront WRT to dominating the perception of the product. I think anyone who is considering Nikon versus Canon right now, in terms of purchasing their first DLSR, would get the impression that Nikon is at the top of the game. This is why I think that if Canon does not respond they are going to lose future market share.

Right now I still love my Canon 7D, but I am on a complete upgrade /lens purchasing hiatus until I see where this is going.

« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 08:30:50 PM by Jason Beiko »

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

kalmiya

I'm on the market (in wait-mode) watching out for developments. Currently have a 550d with 3 L-lenses, and this Nikon does sound like the camera in my price-range and with the features I want ( don't feel like switching though).

I'll just wait to see what canon will come back with as a "starter-full-frame". Note that I'm sure the 5d3 is a great cam, would love to have it, but for me - personally - it's not worth the money ( other bills to pay, different priorities), so just have to wait and see what other options will come in the next few months - and again this Nikon sound like having the features I'd like for the price I'm willing to put down.

Because photo-enthusiast hobbyists vastly out number working pros by a zillion to one?

Even a tiny fraction of hobbyists buying L lenses would exceed the total number of working pros. The exceptions *might* be the extremely long L primes (400, 600, etc), but even there, there exists a huge number of non-pro nature photographers that use these regularly.

And I know, there are millions of us out there, without being abvle to gibve you an exact number. It does not matter. We definitely outnumber Pros by at least 10.000 to 1.

OK, so no stats, just pure speculation. I got it

For someone purchasing camera gear as a hobby, I sense a lot of anger in your tone. Why get mad about something that you're supposed to be doing for fun? If Nikon has the better product for your needs, just switch and be happy. I don't see what the big stink is about.